Wayside Words

Monday, 21 July 2014

Do newspaper headlines sometimes
get it wrong? Advertisers proclaim “Monster sales”, which mean they are big,
cheerful and (hopefully) filled with bargains. Those in charge of the media and
also the police, regularly describe violent criminals as “monsters”. So who is
right and who is wrong? Can somebody or something be big, harmless and
beneficial whilst the same word, applied to wrongdoing, implies that an
individual and/or their deeds are intrinsically evil? How can a few bargains on
a shop shelf equate with a mass murderer – and yet both are described as
monsters?

Then again, how can a mass
murderer, King Kong and colourful, misshapen cartoon characters all fit into
the same category when one is human, one is described as a “colossal” gorilla
and the rest are cute and cuddly? What happens if a mother describes her baby
as “a little monster”? Does she really think her child resembles the massive two-ton
crocodile caught and photographed in the Philippines or the 15metre-long giant
squid found off the coast of New Zealand?

Is this just another example of a
word’s meaning depending on its usage being changed so that people are meant to
understand its meaning by its context?

One online dictionary definition
describes a monster as “a large scary creature in fiction. They are usually
found in legends or horror stories. They are often ugly and may make people
scared.”

Do you remember the first monster
that you ever saw? The earliest that I remember was a Dalek. There might have
been earlier monsters, but there was something scary and exciting about the
metallic creatures which rolled along the floor, waving something that vaguely
resembled a gun barrel and declaring, “Exterminate! Exterminate!” The novelty
of the Daleks captivated small children. Suddenly their play areas were
dominated by little ones who extended a rigid arm at the level of their nose,
clenched their fist and approached their friends with the words, “Exterminate!
Exterminate!” As the juvenile would-be Daleks attacked, so their “victims” made
weird gurgling noises, clutched their stomachs and, with great melodrama,
rolled over and pretended to be dead.

Daleks kill. Daleks are monsters.
Therefore monsters kill... Except that an interview with the late Terry Nation,
who invented Daleks for the Doctor Who
television series, revealed a different story. His creations needed to be of a
shape which would allow someone to sit inside its iconic conical casing. Even a
monster, it seems, may have a human heart. Even King Kong had moments of
vulnerability: he was not totally evil.

We generally think of monsters as
dangerous and evil – yet what about the many smiling, friendly cartoon
characters which are also called monsters although they are harmless? Somehow,
their long teeth, bright colours, multiple eyes and misshapen ears, antennae,
hands or feet are not particularly upsetting. It would be hard to imagine them
doing anything evil. They are more like children in fancy dress: look inside
and there is a mischievous giggle waiting to burst out.

So what happens when there is a
man, woman or child who is described as a monster? Do such people not also have
their soft spots and moments of innocence? Gilbert and Sullivan once wrote:

“When a felon's
not engaged in his employment

Or maturing his
felonious little plans

His capacity for
innocent enjoyment

Is just as great
as any honest man's...”

Problems arise when the word ‘monster’
is applied to a human being. Suddenly that person becomes something other than
human, with no redeeming qualities.

To call someone a monster implies
that he or she is beyond rescue, can never reform and can never be readmitted
to ‘normal’ society. Suddenly such a person is put on the same level as, for
instance, the Kraken, a legendary sea monster reputed, since the fourteenth
century, to dwell off the coasts of Norway and Greenland. The Kraken can never
become a goldfish, peacefully swimming in an aquarium. By contrast, the mother
who describes a naughty child as a “little monster” does not intend to say that
her little one is beyond hope, personifies evil and can never change. Instead,
she sincerely hopes that a nap will transform her fractious toddler into one
who is full of smiles and fun.

Might it be more accurate if,
instead of attaching a monster label to someone, we were to describe their behaviour
as monstrous? There is a difference. Look up “monstrous” in a dictionary. There
are at least forty-nine words which describe “monstrous” behaviour in a human
being. They include such words as appalling, abhorrent, heinous, evil, wicked,
abominable and vile. I suspect that none of us knows somebody to whom all of
the forty-nine words apply, even in their worst moments. The dictionary
definition of monstrous behaviour implies purpose and a choice which has been
made but which could be un-made. There is always room for goodness to slip into
someone’s heart: St Paul’s fanaticism made him a very nasty character before he
met Jesus on the road to Damascus. By the end of his life, people wept when he
said goodbye at the end of a visit!

We have recently seen in the
media, the first reaction of a father to the discovery that his son had become
a mass-killer. In California, in May of this year, 22 year-old Elliot Rodger murdered
six people and then himself. Inevitably, the world’s media had a massive story
and collected eyewitness reports, scene of crime photographs, aerial images and
the reactions of neighbours, police, public officials and psychiatrists.
Several hours of interviews debated the US gun laws and whether or not they
should be repealed. It seemed that, once again, a killer and a monster were one
and the same thing. Elliot’s film director father, Peter, gave a different
picture. "When you go to sleep normally, you have a nightmare and you wake
up and everything is ok," he said. "Now I go to sleep, I might have a
nice dream and then I wake up and slowly the truth of what happened dawns on me
and, you know, that is that my son was a mass murderer... There's no way I thought
that this boy could hurt a flea... What I don't get is we didn't see this
coming at all." Perhaps the reason is clear: the father saw his son. He
did not see a monster. He is a father whose son’s actions broke his heart. Just
as the victims’ family life will also never again be the same, so also with
him, but his grief will be compounded by guilt and the unanswered, “Why?”

Of course the media will use
banner headlines to maximum effect in order to boost sales. The problem is that
there will then be a search for an even more dramatic term as an earlier one
loses its impact on the general public. Categorising someone as a “monster” declares
them as beyond even God’s influence. Once the word becomes banal, what lies
beyond it? If “monster” is applied to a fizzy drink, what happens with the
latest atrocity perpetrated against innocent people? To be human means engaging
in mindfulness, not in mindlessness. We are not pre-programmed robots.

Even
Daleks never tried to replace their human heart beating inside them.

“I can honestly say that I have
never worked a day in my life.” The elderly horticulturalist, standing
surrounded by the multicoloured flowers of his garden, gestured towards their
loveliness. “How can I say that looking after these flowers is work? It is sheer
pleasure. It is for these that I wake up in the morning, hurry to get dressed
and have my breakfast so than I can be in the garden as early as possible and
for as long as possible. Ever since I was a child I have loved plants and so,
as an adult, I do the same sort of things that I did many years ago: I play in
the garden. That is why I say that I have never worked a day in my entire life.
Planting seeds and watching them grow is not work. Clearing a patch of soil so
that it produces flowers is not work. Digging the soil, even when it is hard,
is something I did from my earliest years. I do not work: I play - and I play
from morning till night.”

Sadly, not everybody finds such
joy in their work. For many people across the world, work is drudgery and far
below their potential. A lack of education, skills and opportunities limit
countless numbers of individuals from finding a worthwhile occupation that will
give them peace, happiness and an income adequate to support themselves and
their families. In developing countries where subsistence farming alone
provides the next meal, people often have time for leisure, but only after
backbreaking work with rudimentary tools. A mission doctor working in a remote
area of Zambia, for instance, found as a result of her studies that for many of
the families for whom she cared, the possession of a bicycle made the
difference between subsistence and enough. “Having a bike”, she commented,
“means that a member of the household has transport to buy and carry seeds and
fertiliser more efficiently than when the only means of leaving the village is
on foot. Frequently, the bike is also used, especially during the dry season,
to carry water to the field and also to the house. At harvest time, crops can
be taken to more distant markets than when they have to be carried in small
bundles on the heads and backs of family members. This means that a family can
grow some crops for their own use and some as a means of income.”

In countries such as India, where
the caste system is often the overriding factor, many occupations are limited
by social status. It is extremely difficult, for instance, for an adivasi (a
member of an indigenous ethnic group) or a dalit (lowest caste or
‘untouchable’) to progress beyond the most menial occupations.

Yet it is not long ago that, in
this country, people from the lower reaches of society were described as “not
knowing their station” if they tried to find a better way of life. Even
education was limited, so that they would “know their place”. Their “betters”
worried lest literacy give them “ideas”. Those who followed the progress of the
characters of Downton Abbey will
recall the horror of some members of “the family” when a maid wanted to find
work as a secretary rather than to continue looking after the people “upstairs”.

Work is a real value of our
society. It confers dignity, self-respect, status, interest and provides an
income. We expect people to work and earn their living. Even St Paul wrote, “If
they will not work, let them not eat”. In times past, much was made of the
“deserving and undeserving poor”. Poverty was often seen as culpable. If
someone was hard-up, it was their own fault. This attitude led to the
establishment of the workhouses where many thousands of impoverished families
were consigned when they had no other resources to keep them together. The hard
work to which even small children were subjected was slavery. It was no
different to the plight of those people who were forcibly transported from
their own homes, often to other countries, to work for others for little or no
pay. Slavery continues today: witness the current efforts to address issues of
human trafficking.

Our society regards employment as
of such high value that to be unemployed can be excruciatingly difficult. Of
course there are families where laziness and benefits are transmitted from
generation to generation, but they are in the minority. To be unable to find
work can be totally demoralising for the individual and for the family. That is
why we have recently heard that first-year university students begin searching
for a job rather than waiting until their final year. Many graduates, even a
couple of years after leaving university, have still not found an opening in
their chosen field.

Many of us also know the
sickening feeling which accompanies the discovery that a job has been
terminated, perhaps by redundancy or illness or some other cause. The future
becomes a complete unknown and a nightmare as seemingly secure ground slips
away. Uncertainty about the future accompanies every waking moment and disturbs
every hope of a good night’s sleep.

For some migrants, the laws of
their new countries limit their possibilities of making a new life. I well
remember a situation in Melbourne many years ago, when a Vietnamese doctor and
a psychiatrist could only get jobs as a bus conductor and driver. Having risked
their lives as boat people to travel to Australia, the chances of eventually
practising their professions depended on their willingness to take up work far
below their capabilities for a government-specified period.

The poet and philosopher Kahlil
Gibran wrote that, “all work is empty save when there is love”. True, but what
about the times when it is only love that enables someone to continue working,
day after day, when what they are doing is mindlessly boring and perhaps a
cause of great suffering? Is that work “empty” or martyrdom? What happens when those
for whom the hours of “hard labour” are spent
do not appreciate such self-sacrifice, determination and perseverance?

Gibran also said that, “When you
work with love, you bind yourself to yourself, and to one another, and to
God." One’s occupation can be a wonderful way of self-discovery. It can
also be an amazing opportunity to find meaning in life through a developing relationship
with workmates and with God. It is not surprising that the Psalmist once
prayed, “Give success to the work of our hands”.

When Gibran reflected that, “Work is love made visible”, he was speaking of the ideal.
Not all of us are as fortunate as the horticulturalist who so loved his
occupation that it was like playing. To a certain extent, he was being
facetious: he knew full well that to bring his garden to its perfection had required
considerable hard work. There were probably days when he would also have
preferred to turn over in bed and sleep for another hour. There must have been
times when the last things he wanted to see were his gardening tools. Yet his
success lay in the fact that he tried, tried and tried again - just like the
rest of us - and the results were spectacular.

Sunday, 22 June 2014

“It is a truth universally
acknowledged that anyone who blesses with the Mafia is likely to end up dead –
or, at least, considerably the worse for wear.”

Sadly, the misquoted opening line
of Pride and Prejudice is
frighteningly true. During my time in Rome, I knew an Italian accountant whose
English was as bad as my Italian. We saw each other almost daily, exchanging
our limited greetings and pleasantries. Our conversation never progressed
beyond one or two sentences. My impression, however, was of a friendly man who
knew his business and would probably not have suffered fools lightly. To my
surprise, I discovered that he was influential in the Mafia, or, to be precise,
the Camorra, since he came from Naples.

Working in Vatican Radio and
being a keen walker, I also daily encountered street vendors as they sold their
fake Gucci handbags along the banks of the River Tiber. Tourists thought they
were buying a bargain, probably knew that the handbags were probably not
genuine, but did notice the extent of their shoddy workmanship. An Indian
Jesuit who had some contact with some of the Bangladeshi vendors explained.
“They come over to Italy and look for accommodation. They are directed to a
landlord who offers them room in his property. The men sleep in bunk beds,
perhaps as many as ten to a room. They take it in turns to stay behind for the
day in order to cook for their companions. The landlord charges exorbitant
rents, but the men have no choice because they are often illegal immigrants. In
order to have even a small space on the roadside where they can spread a sheet
and display their wares, up to forty percent of their income is paid as
protection money to the Mafia. If they do not pay, they have no way of earning
a living, have little or nothing for their own survival and earn nothing to
send back to Bangladesh for their families. As it is, many cannot afford to pay
rent to the landlords and end up sleeping, homeless, under a bridge along the Tiber.
They dare not tell their families back home that they are destitute. Some of
the police are also in the pay of the Mafia.”

Pope Francis recently visited the
town of Castrovillari in southern Italy and denounced the Mafia in strong
terms. His words were picked up and broadcast by the world’s media. The general
feeling was that the Pope was either extremely brave or extremely foolhardy.
Few seemed to doubt that he had put his life on the line. Before his journey to
the town where a three-year-old boy was killed in the crossfire between rival
gangs of mafiosi, he had declared, “At my age, what have I to lose?”

Those who stand up to Mafia
violence and extortion become victims. In March, a kindly parish priest whose
Bishop described him as a "discreet martyr of charity", was murdered
with an iron bar for refusing to pay extortion money. The body of Fr Lazzaro
Longobardi was discovered alongside the murder weapon, presumably as a warning
to those who might also think of not paying the “pizzo”, as the Mafia call
their “tax”.

The trouble is that mobsters who
call themselves Catholics, possibly object to having a Pope tell them that they
are involved in “adoration of evil and contempt for the common good.” They
might also dislike being informed that “Those who in their lives have taken
this evil road, this road of evil, such as the mobsters, they are not in
communion with God. They are excommunicated.” During his recent visit to the
Holy Land, Francis did not speak so bluntly to the members of Hamas and
Hezbollah. Perhaps, as a result of his experience with Buenos Aires gangsters,
he felt that he could speak as someone for whom the Mafia have at least some
respect.

More than 200,000 people attended
the Mass celebrated by Pope Francis in the small Calabrian town of Sibari.
Although his words received applause from the majority, there is no doubt that
some of the crowd were sufficiently angered so as to consider some form of
retaliation. Only time will tell whether or not the courageous stance taken by
the Pope will have earned their respect and, perhaps, a change of heart.

The Mafia is particularly
associated with Italy, but because of the massive Italian diaspora, they are
also represented within Italian communities around the world. An American
commented, “My brother works in the construction industry in New York. If he
does not pay protection money to the Mafia, that is the end of his business
and, possibly, his life.”

Pope Francis is the son of
Italian migrants to Argentina. In his years as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he
was no stranger to gangs and to the violence and extortion which he denounced
whenever he could. Has his past experience with mobsters who call themselves
Catholics shown him how far he can go in standing up to their evil? Is he just
someone who is so appalled by gratuitous brutality that he is completely
forgetful of his own safety in his desire to protect others? The same Jesuit
who spoke of the Bangladeshi vendors in Rome, also commented that, “Our Jesuit
training is such that, if necessary, we can stand alone.” Certainly, Pope
Francis has shown himself to be “a man for others” of the calibre of whom St
Ignatius of Loyola would feel justifiably proud.

There is growing rejection of the
mafiosi in some parts of Italy. Even in Sicily, some individuals take their
lives in their hands and refuse their demands. What has been needed has been
somebody “at the top” to speak out on behalf of the many who are often both
powerless and voiceless.

We have just witnessed yet
another example of the exemplary leadership of Pope Francis. In denouncing the
Mafia, he has done something that many people across the world and the years
have longed to do, but have not felt sufficiently brave. A Catholic group
called Libera, founded by a priest by the name of Don Luigi Ciotti, is one of
many anti-mafia organisations active in Italy. Yet real effectiveness in
confronting such a powerful and evil an organisation as the Mafia, requires an
extraordinarily inspirational style of leadership; one which unites these
small, courageous groups in a global renunciation of their power and violence.

In March 2014, Pope Francis met
with a group of victims of Mafia violence. At the time, he declared of the Mafia,
“This life you have now, it will not give you pleasure, it will not give you
joy, it will not give you happiness. The power, the money you have now from so
many dirty deals, from so many Mafia crimes, blood-stained money, blood-stained
power – you will not be able to take that with you to the other life.”

“There is still time not to end up in hell,
which awaits you if you continue on this road,” Pope Francis said. “You had a
papa and a mamma. Think of them, weep a little and convert.”